Wenlock Brewery profits 1921 - 1929

Digging around in the newspaper archives, I've managed to find almost a complete set of profit figures for the 1920's for the Wenlock Brewery.

They show what I already knew: economic condition getting gradually better until 1929, the year of the Wall Street Crash. Wenlock seems to have been in pretty good shape from the middle of the decade, with profits increasing and money being set aside.  A dividend of at least 10% on the ordinary shares was paid every year. Not sure about the preference shares, as they aren't always mentioned in the newspaper reports. My guess would be that 5% was paid every year.

I've not looked at what happened in the 1930's yet, but I know the first few years were some of the most difficult of the interwar period, with beer production falling. I expect things won't look so rosy.

I must try to find out what a typical profit per barrel was. The two years I've looked at for Whitbread show a profit of 8 or 9 shillings per barrel. If Wenlock's profit per barrel were similar, they'd have been brewing around 250,000 barrels a year, which seems way too high.

Wenlock Brewery profits 1921 - 1929
	brought in	net profit	carry forward	to reserve	dividend ordinary shares	dividend preference shares
1921	£16,569	£30,313	£14,382		10%
1922
1923		£62,365		£15,000	10%
1924	£36,478	£72,105	£51,083	£25,000	10%
1925	£51,083	£84,198	£52,731	£50,000	10%	5%
1926	£52,731	£112,986	£83,267		10%
1927	£83,267	£119,201	£97,469		10% + 5% bonus
1928	£97,469	£122,047	£118,266		10% + 7.5% bonus	5%
1929	£118,266	£109,343	£126,359	£50,000	10% + 7.5% bonus
Sources:
Gloucester Citizen - Wednesday 22 December 1920, page 6.
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 10 December 1924, page 11.
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 10 December 1924, page 2.
Aberdeen Journal - Tuesday 08 December 1925, page 11.
Western Daily Press - Wednesday 09 December 1925, page 8.
Western Daily Press - Wednesday 08 December 1926, page 10.
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 07 December 1927, page 10.

As Wenlock hung around until the 1960's, we know they survived the 1930's. Many who entered the decade in worse shape didn't.

Wenlock Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923

We're nearly there. Just two breweries left to go. Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief before I embark on yet another monster series about London beers of the 1920's. What do you fancy next - Stout or Pale Ale?

First a word from the chairman of the Wenlock Brewery, Mr. John C. Duffus. As usual, he took the opportunity to make some political points:

"Wenlock Brewery Co., Ltd.
The annual general meeting was held in London, Mr. John C. Duffus (chairman) presiding.

The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report (vide last issue), after dealing with the accounts, said: When I addressed you last year I was rather pessimistic as to the course our trade was likely to take, in view of the great depression that prevailed all over tho country, but I am happy to state these fears did not materialise and our trade was well maintained throughout the year; but, doubtless, you will want to know what the prospects are for the current year. Well, at the moment the position is far from bright, and from what I can gather, consumption generally is on the decline, caused to a large extent by the present, almost unbearable, high beer duty, a form of prohibition which presses unduly on the wage-earners of this country, who to-day have less money to spend owing to the existing state of trade and large amount of unemployment in our midst. In this respect it may interest you to know that this company has provided towards the revenue of the nation during the past year, for beer duty, income tax and corporation tax, the large sum of £340,000. Let us hope the present Government will use the "Geddes axe" more freely and with greater promptitude than their predecessors in alleviating the heavy burden of taxation which our industries have borne so long. I am hopeful that our new Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he gets fairly seated in the saddle, will see his way, in budgeting for next year's estimates, to make a substantial reduction in the beer duty to enable us to pass it on to the consumer. Such relief, in my humble opinion, would be greatly appreciated by all classes of the community, and add not only to more employment, but also to the revenue of the country. With trade slowly on the mend and private enterprise freed from all Government restrictions and interference, I look forward with confidence to more prosperous times in the near future.

Mr. Henry G. Glover (deputy chairman and managing director), who seconded the resolution, remarked that he had just completed thirty-nine years at the Wenlock Brewery, established by his father fifty years ago.

The report was adopted."
"The Brewers' journal, 1923", page 18.

The government had a big problem with war debt and needed to get its finances in order. Which is why the very high level of taxation on beer, originally seen as a temporary wartime measure continued through the 1920's. The only change was a 20 shilling per barrel rebate from the 100 shilling a standard barrel tax in 1923. It didn't satisfy brewers, and I can see why. Before the outbreak of war, the tax had been just 7s. 9d. per standard barrel.

In 1922, of the 7d. per pint retail average price of beer  3.37d. was beer duty* - very nearly 50% of the total cost.

On with the beer itself. My discussion if the vital statistics of these Burtons has got very dull. I blame the beer - they're all so bloody similar. This one probably even more so than the rest. (Does that make any sense?)

Next it's the scores:

Wenlock Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1010	1054	5.74	81.48%	cloudy	poor	-1
1922	KK	1015	1053.1	5.00	72.50%	almost bright	fair	1
1922	KK	1012	1052.7	5.27	76.85%	bright	good	2
1922	KK	1013	1053.5	5.27	75.70%	bright	good	2
1923	KK	1010	1053.7	5.67	81.01%	slightly hazy	good	2
1923	KK	1012	1050.6	5.07	77.08%	brilliant	v fair	2
1923	KK	1008	1052.9	5.81	84.12%	bright	v fair	2
1923	KK	1011	1050.6	5.21	79.05%	fairly bright	v fair	2
1923	KK	1010	1051	5.34	80.39%	not bright	sour	-3
Average		1011	1052.46	5.38	78.69%			1.00
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

This is getting pretty predictable, too. Less than 50% properly bright, just four from Nine. While again the flavour is much better: only two negative scores, though one of them is a -3. Most of the rest are twos, which is reassuring. As is the average score of exactly one.

Another Burton that's pretty safe to drink

Just Whitbread to go, then I'll do a roundup.





* My calculation from figures in the 1928 Brewers' Almanack.

Pub licence duty in 1912

It's usually the tax on beer that buggers up the brewing industry. But that waasn't the case with the 1909 People's Budget (or the 1909-1910 Finance Act, as it's more prosaically called).

This time it was the licences themselves which were made hugely more expensive. For everyone involved in the industry: manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. It seems to have hit the pub trade particularly hard. These were the duties payable on retailer's licences:

full on-licence: half the annual value of the licensed premises
beerhouse licence: a third of the annual value of the licensed premises*

The annual valie of the premises was defined as:

"For the purpose of this provision the annual licence value shall be taken to be the amount by which the annual value if the premises as licensed premises exceeds the annual value which the premises would bear-if they were not licensed premises"
1910 Finance Act, page 39.

This was a huge amount of money and it appears many publicans struggled to pay it. This gives an idea of how large the increase was:

"THE LAW COURTS.
THE LICENCE DUTY APPEAL.
Mr. Justice Hamilton, in the King's Bench Division, resumed yesterday the hearing the appeal by Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton, against the valuation of the Eagle Hotel, Great College Street, N.W., by the Inland Revenue authorities, for the purpose of ascertaining the annual licence value for payment of duty under the Finance Act of 1909-1910. The appellants put the gross licence valuation the premises at £997, but the Inland Revenue authorities estimated over £1,500, and contend that the amount of duty payable is £415.

Mr. Marks, valuer, further cross-examined by Sir Alfred Cripps, K.C., M.P., on behalf of the appellants, said that before the Finance Act the duty on "the Eagle" was £60 per annum, but it was now £415. In compensation cases witness had always taken 12s. per barrel as the brewers' profit on 37s. 6d. beer. This closed the evidence for Inland Revenue Commissioners.

Sir Alfred Cripps then addressed the Court on legal points raised in the construction of the Act, and the was adjourned until Monday next."
The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 20 April 1912, page 11.

That's an increase of £355, or near enough £1 a day extra in tax. At a time when Mild was only 2d. per pint, that was an awful lot of extra money for a landlord to find.

This case hinged around how the bvalue of the pub as licensed premises was calculated:

"A LICENSING TEST CASE.
JUDGMENT AFFECTING HUNDREDS OF ACTIONS.
PROFITS FROM NON-INTOXICANTS FROM ANNUAL VALUE.
(BY OUR PRIVATE WIRE.)
Reserved judgment was delivered the Master the Rolls, Lord Justices Farwell and Kennedy, in the Court Appeal, to-day, in the important test case with regard to the method of ascertaining the annual licence value payable in respect of the Eagle public-house. Great College Street, London, N.W., for the purpose of the Finance Act. 1910.

Eighty-nine other appeals are governed the decision. and further cases, in which the Commissioners had either given their decisions, and the appeals were held over or reserved their decision, pending this appeal.

The Commissioners of Inland Revenue certified that the annual value of the Eagle was £1,503 as licensed premises, and £300 unlicensed premises, and the annual licence value to paid £1,203, that sum being the difference between the two. Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co. (Ltd.), the brewers, petitioned against the assessment, contending that the Crown had arrived the annual licence value by a wrong process. They said that the annual value as licensed premises should be £900, unlicensed premises £350. and the annual licence value £550. The appellants arrived at the sum by deducting from the annual value of £997 at which the house is assessed to inhabited house duty, the sum of £97 being the estimated profit derived from the sale of commodities other than intoxicating liquors.

After a lengthy hearing Mr. Justice Hamilton dismissed the appellants' position, and the appellants now appealed to the present court.

The Court agreed with the construction put upon the accounts by Mr. Justice Hamilton, but the appeal on one point — that the appellants were entitled to deduct the sum of £97, which amount was derived from the sale of other than intoxicating liquors.

Lord Justice Farwell, giving judgment, said he agreed with the construction which Mr. Justice Hamilton had put upon the statutes to the basis upon which the annual licence value of the premiums should ascertained, but the appellants were entitled to deduct the sum £97 derived from the sale nonintoxicating liquors, etc.. from the annual value. This sum £97 would have to be deducted from £1,545.

The Master of the Rolls concurred. Lord Justice Kennedy disagreed from this view, saying he agreed with the decision Mr. Justice Hamilton, and by a majority the appeal was allowed on the point of the exclusion of the profit from the sale of other than non-intoxicants."
Yorkshire Evening Post - Saturday 20 July 1912, page 5.

You can see why there was so much riding on this case. If Truman had won, the amount paid by publicans in duty would have been greatly reduced.

It's no wonder brewers and publicans thought the government was out to destroy their business. And, to be honest, there were some in the government that did. There a big teetoaller wing in the Liberal Party. Ironically, this was their last hurrah. The 1906 general election was the last time the Liberals ever had a parliamentary majority.




* 1910 Finance Act, page 75.

Watney Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924

We're as far as Watney, one of the surprise winners with their Mild. Why a surprise? Mostly because of their later reputation. Though they do seem to have been one of the biggest brewers in London in the 1920's, based on their profits compared to others.

I've included the traditional chairman's report. I couldn't leave out this one as it's the wonderfully named Cosmo Bonsor. You don't get people with names like that nowadays. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. Like all the other chairmen, he had a good moan about government policy.

"Watney, Combe, Reid and Co., Ltd.
The ordinary general meeting was held in London, Mr H. Cosmo O. Bonsor (chairman) presiding.

The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report, said the, company had had a prosperous year. Referring to the accounts, he said their claim for return of excess profits duty was for something over £200,000, but there were certain deductions to be made. Sundry creditors were larger in consequence of the fire at Mortlake. That fire was very inconvenient. They had closed down their malting for the summer; they had finished their make of malt. The fire was confined entirely to the maltings; it did not touch the brewery or the manufacturing premises, but it destroyed practically all the malt that had been made in the season, and which they were hoping would be used during the months of hot weather. Consequently they had suffered no pecuniary loss because the maltings and the stock were fully insured outside their own insurance fund.

There was a big increase in the freeholds and leaseholds and in trade investments. The trade investments were up in consequence of their having acquired during the year the whole of the share capital of tho Cobham United Breweries, Limited. During the current year they had purchased several houses on the Duke of Westminster's estate. The leases were getting short; they had acquired the freeholds, and they were absolutely satisfied that this was a most excellent investment, although it took up a considerable amount of cash.

Proceeding, the Chairman said : On the whole, I think you will consider that our figures are satisfactory. Turning to our report, you will see that we recommend the same dividends as last year, and we also recommend that out of the year's income £200,000 should be carried to reserve, and that any repayment of excess profits duty should be carried to the same reserve. Those sums will be invested in our business, if they have not already been so invested. That reserve, therefore, will not be a cash reserve. I think you will appreciate that a business like ours cannot possibly stand still. We must either progress or go backwards. We all wish, naturally, to progress, and there are only two ways that I know of finding the money for progressing. One of those ways is by the provision of fresh capital — a thing which I think the shareholders, and certainly the board, would deplore. The other is to set aside a certain amount of the profits of the year for maintaining the business and for going ahead. Under the 1904 Compensation Act we lose a certain amount of trade each year, and it is our object always, if we can, to replace it.

There is another way of spending these undivided profits — namely, in developing our existing channels by rebuilding and improving our present public-houses, and increasing the attractions and giving the facilities to which the public are entitled. That is the policy which we are pursuing.

Referring to the reduction in the price of beer, he said: A penny a pint means 24s. a barrel, and the arrangement was that the Government would give a rebate of 20s. per barrel, and the trade were to find the additional 4s. That is, of course, a serious burden, but it was pointed out that increased consumption would assist the trade to recover that 4s.

When we issued our report we had  before us the results of May and June, and I am bound to say that they were not at all encouraging. Since then, however, we have had beer-drinking weather, and our trade has certainly crept up in a very satisfactory way. It will average itself over the year, and we shall be able to tell you more about it when we meet twelve months hence. In creating our reserve our object is to endeavour to maintain our existing dividends as they are to-day until such time as circumstances will allow us to ask you to increase them.

Mr. Charles J. Phillips, deputy-chairman, seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously.

A final dividend of 10 per cent., making 16 per cent. for the year on the deferred ordinary stock, was declared.

Mr. Richard Combe and Major Arthur C. Bonsor were re-elected directors."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1923", pages 473 - 474.

Ah, the traditional fire in the maltings. Those things were always going up in flames. They must be the cause of three-quarters of brewery fires.

They did well to prise any freeholds out of the Duke of Westminster. I thought he hung onto those for dear life. Being, presumably, in the mist expensive part of London, they must have cost a packet. But, as Cosmo himself said, they had to keep acquiring new pubs to offset the closures caused by the 1904 Compensation Act.

Watney definitely seem to be one of the most aggressive London breweries. They had clear goals in terms of buying pubs and expanding their business. Something that continued past WW II and on to the 1970's. Which is when everything started going wrong.

Do you know what I love about Watney's Burton? It's not effing identical to all the others. It has a significantly higher OG, pushing 1060, and is almost 6% ABV.

Now for the scores.

Watney Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1013	1058.5	6.00	78.63%	cloudy	v fair	2
1922	KK	1012	1057.2	5.87	78.67%	bright	fairly full	1
1922	KK	1014	1055.9	5.46	75.13%	v bright	good	2
1922	KK	1011	1056.3	5.94	80.82%	bright	unpleasantly bitter	-2
1923	KK	1013	1059.4	6.06	78.28%	fairly bright	good	2
1923	KK	1014	1056.6	5.60	75.97%	bright	poor	-1
1923	KK	1015	1059.5	5.79	74.79%	hazy	only fair	0
1923	KK	1015	1059	5.72	74.58%	bright	good	2
1923	KK	1014	1058.2	5.73	75.60%	bright	going off	-2
1923	KK	1015	1061.8	6.12	76.05%	bright	fair	1
1923	KK	1011	1061.6	6.67	82.79%	not bright	fair	1
1924	KK	1014	1059.5	5.91	76.30%	bright	fair	1
1924	KK	1015	1060	5.84	74.83%	bright	v good	3
Average		1013	1058.73	5.90	77.11%			0.77
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Nine of thirteen clear - that's one of the best yet. Still not up to my standards, mind. I'd expect every pint to be clear. For flavour, the score of their Burton is a bit worse than their Mild, which ranked second with a score of 1.25. There are three negative scores and nine positive ones, including a three. Leaving an average of 0.77. Still not bad.

The 1923 -2 score was for a beer bought at the Admiral Napier in Deptford. Remember to steer clear of that pub.

US tour starts today

My US book tour starts today in Boston.

Hope to see you there:

Saturday 8th March Boston Pretty Things event
The Independent
75 Union Square,
Somerville       
http://www.theindo.com
16:00

Pretty Things have brewed up a recipe from the book: 1955 Whitbread Double Brown. I tried some yesterday and it was yummy.

Pubs in the 1920's

In some parts of Britain - the Southeast and around Birmingham - towns were still expanding, with new housing estates tacked onto the outside. But, even when there was clearly demand, licensing authorities were extremely reluctant to grant new licences.

With pubs being actively closed by the authorities, brewers had to keep acquiring new ones jsut to stand still. Which made the prospect of a brand new pub in a new area of housing particularly attractive.

This case is typical. 140 houses had been built at Noak Hill - implying a population of at least 500-600 - but there was no pub. Truman wanted to build one, but met with opposition. One is pretty predictable but the other might come as a surprise.

"ROMFORD LICENSING NEW APPLICATIONS
. . . .
AT NOAK HILL.
Application was made for the provisional granting of a full licence for a proposed new house on the Estate, Noak Hill, for Frederick C. Ottley, of the Sun. London Road, Romford, and Mrs. Emma Cecil, widow, Camberwell Grove.

Harold Murphy supported the application; and for the opposition Mr. J. Thompson appeared for Mr. Mardell, licensee of the Bull, Brook Street; Mr. Read objected on behalf of 72 householders living withm 300 yards of the proposed site, and Mr. Beazley supported him.

Mr. Murphy handed in petitions in favour containing 134 names, and said the site was purchased by Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, Co., who considered it suitable because there was no public-house nearer than a mile. It was a new neighbourhood, where a new demand had been created. About 140 houses had been erected up to now, and when the estate was developed there would be a mile and a quarter road frontage.

Mr Mardell said he could fulfil all orders from Sunny Town and and Mr. Read urged that the residents were quite satisfied. — The Bench refused the application."
Chelmsford Chronicle - Friday 11 February 1927, page 8.

It's no surprise thta there were some local residents who opposed it. There's always at least one who will object to anything. But a publican? Surely he'd be in favour of the trade? Well, not really. If you had a monopoly - which Mr. Mardell seemed to - you wouldn't want competition. In reality it was very common for other local publicans and shopkeepers to object to new licence application.

This will give you some idea of the challenges facing brewers:

Pub licences 1900 - 1930 in England & Wales
Year	Full	Beer / wine	Total Pubs	Population
1900			102,189	32,249,187
1905			99,478	33,990,764
1910	64,129	28,355	92,484	35,796,280
1914	62,104	25,556	87,660	36,960,684
1920	60,021	23,411	83,432	37,524,000
1923	58,887	22,100	80,987	38,403,000
1924	58,610	21,810	80,420	38,746,000
1925	58,336	21,524	79,860	38,890,000
1926	58,103	21,227	79,330	39,067,000
1927	57,896	20,907	78,803	39,203,000
1928	57,896	21,524	79,420	39,482,000
1929	57,465	20,356	77,821	39,988,000
1930	57,525	20,080	77,605
1920 - 1930		decline	6.98%
1910 - 1930		decline	16.09%
1900 - 1930		decline	24.06%
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1971, page 83.
1924 – 1972: The Brewers' Society Statistical handbook 1973”, page 50.

If the increase in population is taken into account, the decline in pub numbers is even more dramatic.

The Sun, a rather attractive 1920's Truman house, still exists. I wonder if that was rebuilt in response to the licence application refusal?

A Truman eagle is clearly visible above the right-hand balcony.

Truman Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924

The end is almost in sight, somewhere just over the horizon. We've now got as far as Truman.

It's a brewery that has a special place in my heart. Because I drank their beer, I know one of their former brewers and they were the last big independent brewery in London.

It seems as if they weren't doing that badly in the 1920's, unlike some of their local rivals. The number of takeovers of largish breweries tells you times were tough. But Truman was making healthy profits:

"Truman, Hanbury, Buxton and Co., Ltd., report a profit for the year ended March 31st of £268,617; available, with £20,000 brought forward, £288,617. Debenture interest requires £47,320; Preference dividend £20,000; interim dividend on the Ordinary shares, £42,525; final dividend not transpired."
"The Brewers' journal, 1923", page 309.

A brewery couldn't stand still back then. With the number of pub licences falling annually, breweries needed to take action to keep up their pub numbers and hence sales. Which is why most were always in the market for pubs:

"The following paragraphs are taken from this month's "Brewers' Journal':-

Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co.. Ltd., have purchased about 100 licensed properties belonging to Messrs. Ash's East Kent Brewery Co., Ltd., as well as the brewery itself. Messrs. Jude recently sold 22 licensed houses in Chatham to Messrs Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co., Ltd. London. - Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton and Co.. Ltd., have taken over 17 of the licensed houses in the Folkestone district belonging to Messrs. Ash's East Kent Brewery Co., Ltd."
Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald - Saturday 25 August 1923, page 6.

Onward with Truman's Burton. Which looks, in terms of specs, as if it's been designed to be perfectly average.

Truman Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1007	1052.6	6.02	87.45%	cloudy	v fair	2
1922	KK	1014	1052.1	4.93	72.94%	bright v dark	fair	1
1922	KK	1012	1050.1	5.01	76.85%	bright	fair	1
1922	KK	1014	1052.8	5.07	73.86%		rather bitter	-1
1923	KK	1012	1056	5.73	78.57%	fairly bright, very dark	good	2
1923	KK	1016	1053.1	4.86	70.62%	brilliant	v fair	2
1923	KK	1018	1054.5	4.73	66.97%	bright	fair	1
1923	KK	1011	1052.4	5.34	78.24%	fairly bright	poor	-1
1923	KK	1016	1053.4	4.86	70.22%	not bright	good	2
1924	KK	1014	1053.4	5.13	73.97%	bright	fair	1
1924	KK	1018	1054.5	4.75	67.34%	bright	v fair	2
Average		1014	1053.17	5.13	74.28%			1.09
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Oh dear. Lots more trouble with clarity. Were the blokes at Whitbread fussy or was brightness really a big problem in London? Only five from eleven were properly clear.

You've probably noticed that the Burtons are scoring better than the Milds. Only three brewers managed an average of 1 or over for their Milds. Truman is our fifth so far with that score from the Burtons. Just two negative scores, both a -1. And a whole string of positive scores, giving an average of 1.09.

I'm definitely switching from Mild to Burton when I retire to the 1920's.

How Barclay Perkins bought Style & Winch

The difficult times of the 1920's prompted many brewery takeovers. With many companies making minimal profits, some owners took little persuading to sell up. Buyers were firms looking to increase their number of tied houses and hence sales and market share.

Barclay Perkins belonged to the latter group. One of the breweries they snapped up was Style & Winch in Maidstone, Kent.

"Latest Brewery Combine. — It is now officially announced that Barclay Perkins & Company have made an offer for the shares of Style & Winch as follows:— 13s 9d cash and three Barclay Perkins shares for two Style & Winch shares. The new shares will rank for dividend as from January 1, 1929.
Dundee Courier - Tuesday 19 February 1929, page 2.

But in hard financial times, where did they find the money? Easy - they went to the Stock Exchange. They cleverly turned a disadvantage into an advantage. One if the problems of the brewing industry, especially after the rush to build tied estates at the end of the 19th century, was the large amount of capital tied up in property. A brewery with 1,000 pubs had millions of pounds just in their freeholds.

How to turn all the dead money into something useful? Use it as security for a loan. Which is exactly what Barclay Perkins did:

"Brewery Debenture.
The brewery trade can offer many sound opportunities for well-secured investment. The capital of brewery companies is largely locked up in properties which form good tangible security. Barclay Perkins & Co., Ltd., for instance, have outstanding £344,990 of an issue of £500,000 of Five Per Cent. Mortgage Debenture stock, which, in addition to being a floating charge, is specifically secured on certain freehold properties.

The stock stands to yield about 5.5 per cent., interest being payable on January 1 and July 1. It is down for redemption in 1977 at 102, but there is the option to redeem in or after 1937. Provision is also made for cumulative sinking fund at 0.5 per cent. to operate by purchase at or under par or at drawings at par.

Those who manage to secure an investment such as this are not usually willing to let it go, and when stock does come on the market it is worth snapping up.

The Latest Issue.
A better opportunity of obtaining a secured interest in Barclay Perkins & Co. is through the Five and a Half Per Cent. Mortgage Debenture stock, which was only issued in March last. This stock was not fully paid until the middle of April, and there is more likelihood that it has not yet reached permanent holders.

An amount of £500,000 was offered for sale, the money being required mainly to finance the purchase a controlling interest in Style & Winch. The security behind the stock is a first charge on freeholds, valued at £500,595 and £252,561 of leaseholds.

Redemption must be made by 1965, but may begin at 1940 at premium varying with the actual date. Interest is payable on April 1 and October 1, so that, although the last business was at 98, the price of issue, the inclusion of approximately three months' interest makes a purchase at the present price the better bargain."
Dundee Courier - Thursday 26 December 1929, page 2.

Here's Style & Winch's brewery from the air in 1921:

As you can see, it was a decent size.

After takeover, most purchased breweries were quickly shut down. In the majority of cases the buyer had no interest in the brewery, just the pubs it owned. That wasn't the case with Style & Winch. Not only did it remain open, it outlived Barclay Perkins Park Street brewery by a few years, finally closing in 1971*.

Barclay Perkins probably couldn't have supplied Style & Winch's pubs themselves because they were so many of them - 600**. I'm not sure how many houses Barclay Perkins had. A register of sales by pubs has 298 listed in 1921***. They must have owned many more than that.

You know what might be fun? Taking a look at the beers of Style & Winch. I'm sure I've got a few details somewhere.





* "The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records", edited by Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton, 1990, page 319.
** "The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records", edited by Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton, 1990, page 318.
*** Document ACC/2305/1/517 held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Meux Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923

We're half way down the hill, about. Or is it half way up? Whatever, we're stuck in the middle of my review of London-brewed Burton Ales in the 1920's.

1921 was a big year for Meux. That's when they left their cramped site on Tottenham Court Road and moved brewing to the former Thorne Brothers Brewery in Nine Elms, Wandsworth*. Consequently all the beers we'll be looking at were brewed there.

How well were Meux doing financially? Not that badly, though it seems they had endured some challenges.

"Meux's Brewery Co.. Ltd.
The annual general meeting was held on the 6th inst. in London, Mr. William Harris presiding.

The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report, said in the course of his speech: When I saw you last year I said I was hopeful that the accounts for the year 1922 would show as good a result as those for the year 1921. I am glad to say that my hope has been realised. Our profits, including rents, interest and other revenue, for the year 1920 were £83,704: for 1921 they were £70,887; and for 1922 they were £83,969. The general trade of the country during the year has improved a little, but the large number of unemployed and the crushing taxation on beer are very unfavourable factors. I said last year that by their crushing taxation on beer the Government were gradually killing the trade in that article, and that, while in 1914 brewers paid duty on 36,000,000 standard barrels of beer, I doubted whether in 1922 they would pay duty on more than 22,000,000. That happens to be the exact number of barrels on which duty was paid last year. This year I doubt if it will reach 20,000,000.

Dealing with the balance-sheet, our interests in freehold, leasehold and other properties show a large reduction, being now £1,027,233. against £1,400,430 in 1921. This reduction, of course,  is due to the fact  that the Tottenham Court Road property is no longer included in this item, and to the depreciation of leaseholds. The expenditure on the new brewery at Nine Elms now stands at £40,927, against £423,383 at December 31st, 1921. We had some expenditure during the year, but we have, I think, now finished.

I dare say you have noticed that some of the intelligent London newspapers have started a discussion about beer, its price, its quality, and the profiteering that brewers are supposed to be indulging in. Their idea seems to be that brewers' profits are such that they could easily reduce the price of beer by 1d. per pint without any reduction in taxation. A penny a pint is 24s. a barrel. There were some 22,000,000 standard barrels of beer brewed in the kingdom last year. This would amount to over £26,000,000, of more than double the profit which I estimate was made in the year by all the brewers of the entire kingdom from the brewing of beer. As for the quality of the beer, our friends seem to forget that brewing is a highly competitive industry, and the brewer who lessens the gravity of his beer will very soon find that he has lessened the volume of his business and the amount of his profits. As for the charge of profiteering, I have made up the profits each year of this brewery from 1891 to 1922 inclusive. Our profits in those 32 years from the brewing of beer, and from rents, interest, and other revenue, applicable to the payment of interest and dividends, have amounted to 5.15 per cent, on the capital employed.

[The Chairman here dealt with the subject of Prohibition, his remarks on which are reported elsewhere in this issue.]

Meux's Nine Elms Brewery in 1896

Returning to our own affairs, if you approve and adopt the report and accounts we submit to-day, the whole of the arrears of Preference dividend will be extinguished, which will mark the end of an epoch in our affairs. . . . Our huge debt of £360,000 has been funded and no longer threatens our very existence. We have to-day the newest, and, I venture to hope  the most efficient and the most economical brewery in London. Our houses to-day are in an admirable state; we have over £300,000 in the bank, and, although we stand in no need of if, our credit is good and stands high.

The report and accounts were unanimously adopted.

Mr. Percival Wolton then proposed " That the directors be paid, in addition to their fees for the year 1923, such a sum as after providing for taxation will leave them each the sum of one thousand guineas." He said:- Within a day or so, the balance of arrears of interest on our preference shares will have been entirely paid off; that will be a great satisfaction to all of us, and also, no doubt, to the directors. At one time the interest was in arrear for the long period of fourteen years. I think our directors are deserving of this proposed bonus; they have sold the site of the old brewery for the handsome sum of £400,000. I think you will agree that that was a very good price to have obtained. Also, instead of an old brewery, we now have a new brewery which is thoroughly up to date, and which cost rather more than the price the old site was sold for, and yet the company has a large amount of cash in hand. I understand that the bulk of the ordinary shares are held by Admiral Sir Hedworth Meux and Lord Tweedmouth. I may mention that both these gentlemen are aware that I am proposing this resolution to-day, and that they are in complete agreement with my proposal.

Mr. T. R. Ronald seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.
"The Brewers' Journal, 1923", pages 131 - 132.

Remember me telling you about how much money brewers had tied up in property? Here's proof. Meux had over £1 million in property, but were only making a profit of £70,000 - £80,000 a year. That's a rubbish return on investment.

It looks like Meux was another brewery that experienced difficulties in the first decade of the 20th century. If they had been in arrears for 14 years, that would place the start of their troubles in 1909 - the year of the People's Budget. Exactly when things went tits up for Hoare.

I'm not surprised that they got a got price for the old brewery. It had a great location (for anything other than a brewery) close to the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street:

Meux Brewery in 1896

Though they'd spent all that £400,000 - and more - on their shiny new brewery in Nine Elms. Sounds to me like they would have been screwed without the windfall from the old brewery site. On those meagre profits, how could they have ever financed a new brewery?

Right, that's enough financial bollocks. Let's at least look at some beer. Even if we aren't going to get to drink any.

A low FG and high degree of attenuation leave Meux's Burton with one of the highest ABVs. But what about the flavour?

Meux Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1007	1058.4	6.68	87.33%	cloudy	good	2
1922	KK	1013	1054.8	5.49	77.01%	almost bright	only fair	0
1922	KK	1010	1052.8	5.54	80.49%	bright	v fair	2
1922	KK	1008	1050.9	5.55	83.50%	bright	good	2
1923	KK	1010	1053.8	5.74	81.78%	v hazy	good	2
1923	KK	1010	1054.6	5.87	82.42%	bright	fair	1
1923	KK	1010	1052.1	5.54	81.57%	hazy	only fair	0
1923	KK	1010	1051.3	5.41	80.90%	fairly bright	poor palate	-1
1923	KK	1010	1051.1	5.34	80.23%	bright	v fair	2
Average		1010	1053.31	5.69	81.69%			1.11
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Again fewer than 50% - four out of nine - of the samples were bright. Honestly, hazy or cloudy pints seem to have been commoner than clear ones. But it comes through on flavour, with just one negative score and six positive ones. Giving a very healthy average score of 1.11.

That's quite a turnaround from their Mild, which placed 13th out of 17 with an average of -0.57. The advice is obvious: stay away from Mild in Meux pubs and stick to Burton.




* "The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records", edited by Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton, 1990, page 233.